HADLOW –v- PETERBOROUGH CITY COUNCIL (2011). In this Court of Appeal case, a local authority unsuccessfully appealed an award made to a teacher, who was injured whilst teaching in a secure facility for women. Although not in a school, this case is relevant to SEN classes and perhaps in other situations involving pupils with behavioural problems.
Circumstances
The Claimant was a 63-year-old woman, who worked with women who exhibited dangerous behaviour. As a result, they were resident in a secure facility operated by the local authority. The local authority’s policy clearly specified that staff members should not be alone with more than two women.
The Claimant was about to teach a class of three women in a locked classroom. The teaching assistant who she taught with was late, so she notified the co-ordinator and asked for another member of staff to sit in until the teaching assistant arrived. This was agreed and at the start of the class, two escorts brought the women into the locked classroom and then both left. The Claimant, who was not facing the escorts, did not realise that they had not stayed behind to help her until the door locked. As soon as she realised she was on her own, she got up out of her chair and tried to get to the door quickly to request an escort to stay, but tripped on her chair and injured herself.
First Instance
The judge held that the local authority was negligent in failing to provide the Claimant with another staff member. The Claimant had only been following the policy and her injury had been directly caused by her being left alone. It was immaterial that the injury was not a “conventional” one.
The local authority tried to argue that the accident was not reasonably foreseeable. If the Claimant had been attacked by the women, then those injuries would have been foreseeable. However, in this case they argued that her actions had broken the chain of causation.
Appeal
The local authority appealed against the decision to award the Claimant damages for personal injury on the basis that the accident was not reasonably foreseeable.
HELD:
The Court of Appeal ruled that although the Claimant’s accident had not happened in the most likely manner, namely an attack or the threat of an attack from the women she was teaching, it had occurred as a result of her – quite reasonably – taking action to remove the risk of being left alone and in trying to correct the local authority’s breach of duty in leaving her with the three women, contrary to its policy.
The risk of physical injury was indeed foreseeable and although it did not occur in the likely manner, the Claimant being injured could be sufficiently envisaged and was caused by the local authority’s breach of duty – they had created a risk of injury and the Claimant had acted appropriately. The judge had applied the correct test and was justified in his conclusion.
The appeal was dismissed.
